Pendle Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Pendle?
Learn what selected Pendle decisions said about privacy, outlook and visual impact.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 16 of 30
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 15
- of 16 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Pendle LPA (53.865517, −2.184927). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Pendle Borough Council appeal findings
Privacy, outlook and visual harm in Pendle
The selected examples include a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set, and the sole allowed extract gives only its conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Privacy, outlook and visual harm
Privacy not preserved
The selected extract concludes the rebuilt outbuilding would fail to preserve adjacent occupiers’ privacy.
Outlook harm
Two selected extracts conclude that the proposals would harm living conditions, particularly outlook.
Visual impact: significant harm
The selected extract concludes the extension would cause significant harm to No. 41’s living conditions.
Helped or needed
Allowed conclusion on neighbour living conditions
Living conditions not harmed
The selected conclusion says the two-storey side extension would not harm a neighbour’s living conditions. It does not give the supporting analysis.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a privacy loss for a neighbouring occupier?
- Does it explain the outlook effect on a neighbour?
- Does it set out the visual impact on living conditions?
Appeal 87056 also considered a conservation area, and its displayed conclusion gives no detailed neighbour-impact analysis. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
7 April 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two-storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the appeal development on; • the character and appearance of [address] and the Whitehough Barley Conservation Area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 5 [name] with particular regard to loss of privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of my findings above, the proposed extension would not be harmful to the living conditions of No. 5 [name] and is that it is in accordance with the overarching aims of Policies DM16 and DM24 of the Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition (2021–2040) which among other things require proposals to be well-considered, sympathetic to their surroundings, and designed in a way that maintains heritage qualities.
Paragraph 22 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
27 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition and rebuilding of outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposal would fail to preserve the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, with particular regard to privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policy ENV2 of the CS and paragraph 135 of the Framework, which together seek to provide high standards of design and amenity for existing users. There would also be conflict with the SPD, as set out above.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
18 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to outlook.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 4, with particular reference to outlook. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies DM16 and DM24 of the LP. These collectively require development to achieve high quality design and to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on immediate neighbours, including through overbearing impacts.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
20 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a single storey rear extension with associated internal alterations and site works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to visual impact.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 41. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy ENV 2 of the Pendle Local Plan Part 1: [name] (LP) and the Council’s Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document insofar as they promote high quality design and aim to safeguard residential amenity. It is also at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that developments should create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
1 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: ‘single storey rear extension, dormers to front and rear roof slopes, porch to front’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 58 [name], with particular regard to outlook.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons the proposed dwelling would fail to preserve the living conditions of the occupiers of 58 [name], with particular regard to outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy ENV2 of the [name] (2015) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which together, in summary, seek to provide high standards of design with regard to living conditions.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2